Iran, Strait of Hormuz experts?

Any Strait of Hormuz experts here? We have our 5th Navy fleet out there with 20 ships etc... Anyone know what Iran has there and how they would go about keeping the Strait closed for more than a day? What would they actually do and what would we actually do if they knocked out an oil tanker or something?

The Strait of Hormuz is 30 miles wide at its narrowest point, 200 feet deep, and 20% of all world oil exports pass through it (over 1/3rd of all of the seaborne oil). Nobody has ever accused me of being an expert on anything nautical, and I certainly am not an admiral. It would take a greater military strategist than me to tell whether the 5th fleet could keep it open in the event of war. I suspect that we could keep it open, or else re-open it within a matter of days or weeks if it were blockaded or mined. The definition of "open" depends on the losses one is willing to tolerate, and the traffic through that straight is so vital that the world would simply have to keep running ships through it, with or without losses. But that isn't the point.

I will quote the following from a 2010 martenson report:

Chris Martenson wrote:

Should Iran be attacked, I would immediately issue an Alert, because my assessment is that major economic and even social shocks could result throughout the world. I can easily foresee significant economic and financial convulsions resulting from even a one-month blockage of the Strait of Hormuz. Should China or Russia engage on the 'other side' to any degree, the potential for the impacts to escalate would be greatly increased.

If the Strait of Hormuz is blocked, oil would rapidly escalate in price and could easily exceed its former high of $147/bbl in July 2008. Should oil go to $200 or even $300 per barrel, economic contraction would sweep across the already-fragile financial landscapes of Europe, the US, and Japan. Should that come to pass, we’ll experience another financial crisis that is even larger than any before, with unpredictable social and political consequences.

My final assessment is that seeking militarily-secured access to oil halfway around the world is not a terribly well-thought-out strategy. Crude carriers are slow (and are filled with a combustible material), pipelines are almost impossible to defend, and oil production requires many skilled individuals working in relative peace to continue operating.

In my view the real point is encapsulated in the last sentence of the quote above: oil production requires peace. World oil supply is extremely tight, and inelastic. Iran exports 2.5 to 3 million barrels of oil per day that the world cannot do without. The world needs Iran's oil production to avoid severe economic consequences. Even if NATO military might can keep the strait open for shipments, we cannot go to war with Iran without disrupting the flow of Iranian oil. Iran would probably ruin their own oil fields to prevent them from being captured.

Even if we assume that the disruption of Iranian oil production is temporary, the most severe world consequences of a supply disruption might be permanent. For example, the probable fiction of excess Saudi Arabian oil production capacity may be revealed by any Iranian export outage. Today it is admitted that almost all large oil exporters are probably pumping at or near their maximum capacity. Saudi Arabia is the last great hope for spare conventional capacity. They like to tell the world that they have 12.5 mbd of total oil production capacity (which, at a current production rate of ~8.5mbd leaves roughly 4mbd of excess capacity, about half of which is purportedly light sweet grade). Despite occasional cracks in the facade the world is buying this story.

The reality is that if Iranian oil supply is taken off the market, and Saudi Arabian excess capacity is revealed to be falsehood, then all of a sudden the world will have to face the energy Reality. What follows could be permanent upward repricing of oil as the vital and non-replaceable resource that it is, the nationalization of oil reserves, and the withdrawal of one or more oil-exporting nations from the world export market. From then on we would be playing a different game, regardless of whether the 5th fleet can keep the strait open.

Thorough explanation! The best I've heard so far in the media. Oil is the main weapon or bargaining chip Iran has left so it will be interesting to see what they do if they continue on the path that they have chosen the past several years..... I surprised how shallow the waters are there.

In continuing to escalate the war of words, I'm wondering if Iranian leaders are insane (like Saddam, who massively miscalculated the US response to his bluster and the full spectrum dominance of that response) or if they have cards they're not showing us (eg. Russian or Chinese help of some kind). Nevertheless, they'll sacrifice their nation if full hostilities develop, no matter how effective their closure is (and I think it would be remarkably assymetrical and effective). The US, on the other hand, but would probably prevail (taking far more casualties, time and treasure than anticipated) and in the end slump down realizing it wasn't worth it. I would like to think I live in the country that did NOT force armed conflict, but responded to someone else's armed aggression. I don't have much confidence in that. On the other hand, $8/gallon gasoline in the US might force us to do some things we been refusing to do for decades regarding transitioning our transportation sector away from gasoline.

Nevertheless, they'll sacrifice their nation if full hostilities develop, no matter how effective their closure is (and I think it would be remarkably assymetrical and effective).

What a typical American response...! Would the US Government "sacrifice its nation" if it was under attack? No matter who starts a war, it ALWAYS ends up in a mess. Like the way you lot have now left Iraq in such a complete, I think they were all better off under Saddam!

thc0655 wrote:

The US, on the other hand, but would probably prevail (taking far more casualties, time and treasure than anticipated) and in the end slump down realizing it wasn't worth it. I would like to think I live in the country that did NOT force armed conflict, but responded to someone else's armed aggression. I don't have much confidence in that. On the other hand, $8/gallon gasoline in the US might force us to do some things we been refusing to do for decades regarding transitioning our transportation sector away from gasoline.

I hate to tell you this, but since WWII, the US has always started wars, meddling in other people's affairs, like Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq and Afghanistan. History will show those conflicts to have been total wastes of time, effort, lives, and energy....

...my resilience-related project this weekend is buying a good bunch (8?) of 5-gal gas containers, filling 'em, and dosing 'em with Sta-Bil. This has been bugging me for a while now and I've got the money together and have an unexpected free day tomorrow. (This gas is mostly for generator purposes, but could also end up in the cars is an extended total grid-down sitch.)

My timing's good, I suppose, what with all the ridiculous saber-rattling going on. I was filling a client in today about the recent escalation in the jibber-jabber by both the US and the Iranians and she just flat out said, "Jeez! Men and their pen¡$e$!!" [grin]

But it'll feel good to have about 10 days worth of generator gas put back, since there's a multi-day outage pretty much every winter...

History will show those conflicts to have been total wastes of time, effort, lives, and energy....

Mike

I'm no military expert, but the recent "springs" in countries once semi-stable and mostly friendly to the West, including Iraq and Afganistan, seem to be ushering in a host of strong anti-west ruling parties. Combine this with Iran and if one were looking for a nice tight cluster of countries to start a third WW against you have the makings right there. Since world wars in the past have done so much good for the world's economic lenders and the industrial complex, it would not surprise me if this were simply engineered. Total wastes of time, effort, lives, and energy....probably, but possibly completely planned. How well planned remains to be seen with wild cards out there like China and Russia and a couple of very wealthy outlying individuals.

Not mentioned above is the fact that the National Defence Authorization Act 2012 includes new sanction provisions against Iran. It will become illegal for US financial institutions to do business with the Iranian Central Bank or any financial institution that deals with the Iranian Central Bank.

Since the majority of government revenue is derived from oil exports the loss of oil exports would be economically devastating to Iran. While China might well be prepared to flout the new US financial regulations it is unlikely India would do so. Clearly Iran has responded by saying if you cut off our oil exports by financial controls we will cut of exports from the Iranian (Persian) Gulf by physical closure.

If Iran closes the strait of Hormuz they will be painted as the aggressor while the NDAA 2012 provisions will be ignored, as they clearly are in the MSM.

[Moderator's note: This post has been abridged to address an infringement complaint by the copyright holder. Please follow the link below to hear an interview with Jim Rockards on King World News.]

This is a very important interview with one of the top individuals in the world of national security. Rickards also had more to say about central planners actions and how it will impact the price of gold. The KWN Jim Rickards interview will be available shortly and you can listen to it by CLICKING HERE.

History will show those conflicts to have been total wastes of time, effort, lives, and energy....

Mike

I'm no military expert, but the recent "springs" in countries once semi-stable and mostly friendly to the West, including Iraq and Afganistan, seem to be ushering in a host of strong anti-west ruling parties. Combine this with Iran and if one were looking for a nice tight cluster of countries to start a third WW against you have the makings right there. Since world wars in the past have done so much good for the world's economic lenders and the industrial complex, it would not surprise me if this were simply engineered. Total wastes of time, effort, lives, and energy....probably, but possibly completely planned. How well planned remains to be seen with wild cards out there like China and Russia and a couple of very wealthy outlying individuals.

There's one big big difference between then and now.... during and after both WW's, the West was awash with oil. The US in particular was THE oil producer after WWII.

As Kunstler has said many times, China does not even need planes and ships to get to the Middle East, they can walk there...!

This article puts the possibility of Iran blocking the strait into some perspective. The US Navy is not a sitting duck. Any move Iran might make they have to recognize will bring disproportionate suffering down on their own heads. I wouldn't want to get involved in a land war in Iran, but the US is still master of the seas and Hormuz is an easy target.

Also, who made Jim Rickards an expert on military matters? I like listening to him wrt gold and economic matters, but military strategy and capabilities? nah. He's right about the price of oil going up in an ugly scenario, but that's as much expertise as I'm willing to concede he has.

December 30, 2011 "ABC News" - -Unwilling to back down from the growing criticism that his foreign policy would be “dangerous,” Ron Paul told voters in Iowa that western sanctions against Iran are “acts of war” that are likely to lead to an actual war.

Paul said that Iran would be justified in responding to sanctions by blocking the Straits of Hormuz, adding that the country blocking the strategically important strait is “so logical” since they have no other recourse.

He then compared the situation to China blocking off the Gulf of Mexico to trade.

by all means run out and stock up on gasoline...8 x 5 gallon cans equal 40 gallons of gas

i bet you all burn thru that in less than a week.

some hedge.

naw, one has to have provided oneself with non petroleum energy answers or work arounds.

the question to ask yourselves is not am i correct, is this or that going to happen? but can i provide for myself and family without oil products and money, and energy .?

if you find yourself still going to the store for what you need, you are not ready

Well said, I've been preparing for Peak Oil for almost 5 years and it isn't easy having one foot in the current oil world with another in our future world. Granted, my Volt will burn 35 gallons to drive 16,000 miles but that is just one small step of many.... I'd love to go to the store once per year... just to look around.

by Jan Lundberg
29 December 2011
If you can picture 15 million barrels of prime Persian Gulf oil each day going through a narrow strait, that of Hormuz, it's not hard to understand that
a serious choking action could touch off petrocollapse. That is, if you understand the extreme volatility of the oil market and the potential for a
crippling blow to the prevailing just-in-time-delivery system of commerce.

Alas, this understanding is not in the mainstream media and usually not even in progressive websites and publications. Almost a year ago, we published (e.g., in Alternet.org) a warning on the implications of the Arab Spring: "Arab World's Turmoil May Spell Sudden Petrocollapse." Our illustration that went with the article, shown here, is still apt.

As you must be aware, tensions between the states of Iran, the U.S. and an assortment of self-interested allies are at a high mark. If international
sanctions would try to close off Iran's oil exports, over a possible nuclear weapons program in Iran that the country and some other parties greatly
downplay, what do you think Iran might do? For self-preservation, it may play the only hand it thinks it has: blockade the Strait of Hormuz.

Someone made the point of who would be here to use the oil if there were a nuclear war? I agree it is hard to believe that we could be so desperate and stupid- to maintain our system that we would use nuclear. It would start as conventional I imagine. I believe Matt Simmon's point, as well as mine, is that things could quickly get out of control. Look at what those idiots in DC have done over the last ten years, and now you have Israel chomping at the bit along with some of our people to bomb Iran. Iran WILL be bombed! They can not have nuclear weapons. That is a done deal. I guess I don't have a whole lot of faith in human nature. We will have so many people yelling for war so they can fill their SUV's it won't be funny. I lived through the 70's oil crisis and my family is in the oil and gas business. Maybe the odds are only 10%, but there is no way anyone can tell me they are 0%.

As for someone's question about Rickards, he is a consultant to the Pentagon. He's more of a military expert than most people.

Cheers all,

Ernest

P. S. Matt Simmons was on Dick Cheney's energy committee, so I imagine he had a good idea of our government's plans for oil. We just spent $1.5 trillion on a trumped-up war for oil.

As Ewilkerson points out, the probability of Iran trying to close the strait is non-zero. It strikes me, however, since half of Iran's national budget is financed by oil shipped through the strait, the odds of them taking some kind of military action to block the strait would be much greater if we (allies in the region) try to shut off Iran's access to the strait. That would be foolish. In the absence of such a move, Iran will likely go along to get along.

OK, Rickards is an advisor to the Pentagon. On what subject? Oil? gold? finances? maybe, probably not military strategy or capabilities. Has he ever served on a ship of war? Does he have a clue of their capabilities? Has he ever taught at one of the war colleges? Has he even ever been in the military?

The Pentagon gets advice from lots of disciplines, only some of which involve actual military operations.

Also, who made Jim Rickards an expert on military matters? I like listening to him wrt gold and economic matters, but military strategy and capabilities? nah. He's right about the price of oil going up in an ugly scenario, but that's as much expertise as I'm willing to concede he has.

Doug

Jim Rickards is said to be an expert on geopolitical economics and as readers of his "Currency Wars" knows was involved in planning and participating in non-kinetic (military speak for cold war) war games.

Now the current belligerency is directly in Rickards field since it is political, economic warfare most recently being unleashed by the US congress in the NDAA 2012 bill. Attempting to eliminate all of Iran's customers for its oil by financially excluding the enabling banks from business involving the US is a dramatic act of economic warfare, to which Iran has responded.

It seems clear that Iran understands the economic warfare while I seriously wonder about the US. The political and economic aspects of its warfare seem to be totally distinct from its military apparatus. The Pentagon has absolutely no control over economic warfare, while Congress aims to cripple the economy financially. This asymmetric financial war could well lead to asymmetric kinetic war which would tax the Pentagon's ability to respond, while they at the same time have no control over the economic actions. Seems to me the lack of integration is poor strategic planning.

Regarding Iran's capability I think one need only look at the harm that poorly equipped Somalian pirates were able to effect off the horn of Africa in spite of allied conveys and protection.

EDIT: Doug, these actions do effectively shut off Iran's access to the Strait of Hormuz since they economically target it's ability to sell oil. Again this is precisely Rickards expertise, economic warfare.

As to your statement that it would be stupid on Iran's part to close the Straits the reason they would is that there is mounting pressure from us and especially France to boycott buying their oil. I believe this is why they have their feathers ruffeled.

"We have test fired a long-range shore-to-sea missile called Qader (capable), which managed to successfully destroy predetermined targets in the Gulf," deputy Navy Commander Mahmoud Mousavi told the official news agency IRNA. Iran earlier said it would test fire two long-range missiles on Monday - Qader and another system called Nour (light) - to display its resolve to counter any attack by enemies such as Israel or the United States."

That strikes me as a little like saying that you have miraculously hit a target 25' away with a zeroed in target rifle. How would their missiles do against moving ships a couple hundred miles at sea. Color me a sceptic as to their true capabilities.

Nonetheless, the rhetoric and tensions continue to rise. Someone very much wants a confrontation. It's getting ugly fast.

SteveW and Ewilkerson-What chances do you think the west has of successfully persuading enough countries to boycott Iran oil to push Iran to the point of either taking military action or caving in to the west? And, what does caving even mean?

I believe there is a decent chance of persuading other countries. OPEC has said they would make up the difference. Now whether you believe they can is another matter. It seems, though, this is not just about the possible boycott. Iran has a fair amount of discontent, and after their leaders watched the Arab Spring there is worry at the top. Someone like Ackmadinajad (not sure on spelling) is mentally unstable. He is probably a Narcissist and a Sociopath. People like that tend to be paranoid. Take Hitler as an example. Declaring war on Europe made no sense, but he did it. Some moves by leaders are literally made by their distorted view of the world. I'm going to put an 80% chance on a conflict, because Israel will bomb Iran. I can't see any doubt about that. They already have the new gigantic Bunker Buster bomb. When you have weapons in this kind of situation they normally get used.

I believe someone was defending our military. I agree. Of course we could blow every ship they have out of the water if needed. The thing is they could get in a few licks with the swarming tactic of suicide boat bombs like Rickards pointed out. It's hard to get 50 small boats when they come at the same time and such fast speeds. The worst scenario would be if a couple tankers were sunk in the very narrow points. I believe that could stop shipping itself.

Can Ahmajinadad (I don't know the spelling either) start military action without the clerics being on board? It's never been clear to me who has the real power there.

On your last point, I did a little checking the other day. The actual navigable channel is about 20 miles wide at the narrowest point, although the officially designated channels are 2 miles each way and a 2 mile median strip. Depths in the larger channel appear to generally be over 150ft., meaning that sinking a couple tankers would not present overwhelming navigation hazards by themselves. And, if Navy vessels are out to sea instead of being bottled up in the Gulf, carriers carry over 100 fighters/bombers that I suspect could take care of 50 small boats handily given enough warning. But, who really knows until the event.

Iran is very unlikely to make the first move and initiate a direct military confrontation with the US. They seem to have a fairly competent intelligence capability and I am sure they have no illusions about the eventual outcome of such a conflict. Their strategy must be to deter the US and Israel by making an outright conflict as unappealing as possible - both directly to the US/Israel, and to our 'friends' and allies who can apply pressure for restraint. Iran is unlikely to show all their military cards while at the same time attempting to present themselves as a credible military threat in any potential conflict. The war games in the gulf, announcements of outing of CIA assets, the parading of the captured drone - all intended to show strength, competence, and cunning. The US and Israel have no need of so much overt showmanship - the active conflicts in the region already provide such. We don't know what kind of aid Russia and China have (and are) providing. Undoubtedly they have satellite reconnaissance that would be helpful to Iran, in addition to any hardware they are providing. Hard to say if Russia could, for instance, interfere with US targeting and stealth capability without becoming directly involved themselves.

When was the last time US forces faced a halfway competent opponent? Not to imply Iran is in any way equal to US hardware - but neither have they been neutered as was Saddam or Gaddafi; and the Taliban?

Any spark is likely to be either accidental or a set-up perpetrated or forced by others. As to how it (a conflict) would play out - unknowable I think - too many variables and unknowns. Iran has threatened to cause trouble elsewhere if attacked and it seems likely to me that conflict would spread to Lebanon, Syria (if it hasn't already fallen into the western sphere at the time), and perhaps elsewhere.

If there is a conflict I expect the start to be sudden and 'unexpected' - as opposed to the run-up to Iraq. The West would very likely prefer to control Syria before initiating anything... but sometimes events can get ahead of themselves - forced by other circumstances or triggered by accident.

I strongly doubt that Iran will acquiesce to US demands (not clear that ANY offer would be deemed acceptable by the US). They will continue to try to stall and delay a conflict while continuing to improve their position in any way they can. The US surely knows this.

Edit:

The US has long held the position that closure of the Strait would provoke a military response. Iran will not initiate this step but will attempt to do so if conflict breaks out and they certainly wish others to believe they have the capability to do so, at least for a period of time. Protracted conflict would close it to commercial shipping so it is in Iran's interest to present themselves as a credible threat and for the US to plan on ending any conflict as quickly as possible.

If Israel (or the US) tried to carry out a 'surgical' strike to take out the nuclear infrastructure would Iran just take it because a closure of the strait would invoke more devastating retaliation? I don't know.

When was the last time US forces faced a halfway competent opponent? Not to imply Iran is in any way equal to US hardware - but neither have they been neutered as was Saddam or Gaddafi; and the Taliban?

Precisely..... I firmly believe that if the US attacks Iran, it will be the biggest military mistake the US will have ever made.... And if you think the Iranian leadership is crazier than the Israeli counterpart.... you're smokin' something I wouldn't mind havint too!

SteveW and Ewilkerson-What chances do you think the west has of successfully persuading enough countries to boycott Iran oil to push Iran to the point of either taking military action or caving in to the west? And, what does caving even mean?

Doug

Persuasion is not the word I would use. The US will blacklist anyone who deals with the Iranian Central Bank, which is the payee for their oil. Thus all the oil co's will follow along unless they are able to "launder" Iranian oil. I guess it depends upon how serious the US is and whether they would not notice subsidiaries set up for the express purpose of buying Iranian oil. India would run short of oil while China might well ignore the US since it has enough leverage.

As usual the devil is in the details and the diplomatic notes that are circulating and the advice the State Department gives to the oil companies.

I think there is basically a zero chance of Iran caving in, whatever that means. The new report about their nuclear capability draws on no new information but simply puts a different slant than the IAEA did in El Baradei's day, so we really don't know their progress. I believe they are quite sincere in threatening military action, but it might not necessarily be kinetic as they could probably capture oil tankers using their fast patrol boats. Then if the West wants to escalate Iran could probably shut down the straits long enough to cause a global recession.

Good info on the channel. I had read my info a good many years back, so good. I never said that Iran would start it. My most likely scenario is Israel bombibg them and there we go. From what I have read about whether the crerics have to agree is that you are right. They probably do, but they are giving him support to help him prop up his power with the pubic. Wars are almost always good for that. One other major weapon they do have id diesel/electric subs which are very hard to detect. They can, also, put some guns on the shore or on swift boats and cause havoc. It may not be any big deal but wha tankers are going to take the chance with what that would do to insurance. Oil prices would skyrocket, too, which is one of Irans bjectives. They can't win but they can cause havoc..

Sorry if i missed anything. I'm outside at the beach in a colllldddd wind.